Between a visit by the Queen’s grandson and his new bride, and the Harper Government’s announcement about the return of the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force; a minor debate about the monarchy and Canada has resumed. Frankly, it is hard to imagine how any Canadian could possibly be against the idea of the monarchy and the role it plays in our government and society.
Unfortunately, too many Canadians are not that well informed about the nature of their government and the monarch’s role in it. A 2002 Ekos Research Associates Poll found that 69% of Canadians think the Prime Minister is the head of the Canadian state while 9% thought that was the function of the Governor General. Only 5% correctly identified the Queen as our head of state.
A poll taken by Ipsos Reid in October 2009 reported that 53% of Canadians want Canada to end its constitutional ties with the monarchy after Queen Elizabeth II dies. Worse still, the same poll found that some 60% of Canadians believe the monarch and her family to be celebrities and nothing more.
A sampling of published letters to the editor in various Canadian newspapers revealed a wide number of negative opinions about the monarchy and arguments about why Canada should sever its connections with it. Some writers opined that the monarchy was a link to our ‘colonial past’ and a potential insult to newcomers from diverse backgrounds. Others held that the role of the monarchy represented a fundamental immaturity that Canada could dispense with.
Alas, the Tower of London has not been available for imprisoning and beheading traitors since the 11th Lord Lovat was dispatched in 1747 for siding with Bonnie Prince Charlie, and the last men to be held and executed there were German spies in the Second World War. Nor has any case of lese majesty against the British Crown been prosecuted since 1715. In the absence of dungeons and big sharp axes, the defence of the monarchy is going to have to be waged with reason.
The first civics lesson for Canadians about the monarchy is to understand precisely what a Parliamentary monarchy is and what it means. The great British novelist Terry Pratchett had one of his characters in his novel, Soul Music, observe: “Here’s an important rule: Never give a monkey the key to the banana plantation.” P.J. O’Rorke also observed that giving politicians access to power was the equivalent of handing the keys to the liquor cabinet and to the car to young boys. The oldest story we have, the Epic of Gilgamesh, describes the vexation that an untrammelled leader can be to his people.
It is a fundamental aspect of Western society for the last 3,000 years that we are governed because we allow ourselves to be governed. All through the history of the Western world, it is clear that most of us occasionally recognize a need for executive power in the hands of our leaders and that we otherwise resent and distrust its exercise. The struggle to develop and control political power is the history of democracy and after many centuries of painful evolution we have two models that work.
There are two basic forms of democratic government: Republics and Parliamentary Monarchies. The difference between the two largely rests on the availability of executive power balanced against the power of the legislatures and the judiciary.
In a republic, the president has the executive power but the only way to guarantee (hopefully) that it won’t be used too much is to hedge the President’s office with laws and regulations. The problem is the perennial human itch to acquire and use executive power. Most republics are short-lived for that reason as there is always someone eager to ‘reform’ the Constitution for some noble reason that leaves them with more authority in their hands. So far the Americans have managed to last 224 years without fraying the chains around the office of the President too much. Other republics have managed to last a few days.
Parliamentary monarchies operate around a very simple compact. The monarch holds executive power with the implicit promise that he or she does not exercise it. Laws and constitutions can be changed and often are — all too easily. Tradition and custom are harder to alter and easier to reinstate. Besides, theoretical executive power has to be deftly managed which leads to a style of government more prone to quiet negotiation and compromise.
The British North America Act that created Canada contains the dedication of Canadian government to the provision of peace, order and good government. Two and a half out of three isn’t bad, and the slow deliberate changes wrought by a Parliamentary Monarchy have given us many reasons to be grateful.
We have had politicians who meddled and tried to assume executive authority for themselves. Trudeau ‘repatriated’ a constitution we hadn’t really needed in our hands, and Mulroney just had to do the equivalent of breaking into the liquor cabinet and taking the car for a spin with his constitutional experiments. A lot of Canadians who even voted for both of them (as the author did) still despise both of them for this. It is best to keep executive power theoretical, especially with so many special interests and amateurish politicians hungry for access to it.
Parliamentary monarchies have some special advantages. Britain has been more or less politically stable for over three centuries and one should look at the stability of other European parliamentary monarchies such as the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, plus an assortment of very stable principalities and dukedoms. The French are now working on their fifth Republic (with time out for two Empires) in 200 years and Italy’s governments used to come by at dizzying speeds. Spain, after centuries of Left-Right turmoil has enjoyed an unparalleled domestic tranquility since the return of the monarchy in 1975.
North America largely consists of three major nations: Ourselves, the United States, and Mexico. In terms of population, Canada is third. The US is a republic, so too is Mexico; which has not enjoyed the relative stability of the US. Why would any Canadian want to replace the monarchy to become yet another North American Republic?
The distinctiveness of Canada as a parliamentary monarchy allows a Canadian to have a lot of fun when talking to American colleagues. One can discuss current military events and military history by tossing in the names of the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force (and how lovely it is to see their old glorious titles restored); or such of our regiments as the Princess Patricia’s, the Royal 22nd Regiment, or the Queen’s York Rangers.
George Washington was George Washington but John A. Macdonald was Sir John A. A conversation on legal or criminal matters allows one to sprinkle in terms like ‘Queen’s Bench’ and ‘Crown Attorney’; and so on. It is also worth using the full name of our national police force: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (or the Gendarmerie Royale du Canada if one prefers). It would be marvelous to drop ‘the Post Office’ or ‘Canada Post’ for a return to the ‘Royal Mail’ too; one can only hope that the Harper Government might be quietly considering this.
These are small differences, but they allow Canadians a degree of distinctiveness when conversing with Americans. Why should we want to be rid of these differences?
Let us not forget that it was loyalty to the Crown that helped create Canada and kept it apart from the United States. Much of the early English settlement in eastern Canada was by political refugees from the American Revolution – the Loyalists — and many of our Aboriginal peoples were likewise refugees from the US. They trusted the Crown more than the promises out of Congress. The people of Quebec twice had a choice (in 1775 and in 1813) of staying with the Crown or acceding to the Americans and they let their muskets speak for them. Why belittle these historic choices?
For that matter, what is with the disrespect to the Royal Family? They are living symbols, not celebrities. They might not be perfect but they are a link with a long past. Moreover, it is not difficult to notice that they take the ‘family business’ extremely seriously. A lot of Canadian soldiers have noticed that the Queen takes her role as commander in chief to heart; she meets the gaze of as many of them as she can and an inspection by her is not a mere formality. Her late mother effortlessly turned duty into love in a number of cases (she is still deeply missed by the Toronto Scottish Regiment) and no politician can work a room as well as Prince Andrew does with his real gift for making ordinary people feel appreciated and important. The family business is in good hands and has been for some time.
Canada is not an ‘immature’ country with some sort of ‘colonial hangover’ because of the role of the British Monarchy in our government. We are a confident nation with a strong international presence but a great deal of our character derives from our historic links with the Crown and this adds to our distinctiveness from our closest neighbours.
Parliamentary monarchies rock and Queen Elizabeth rules!
